Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

But we don't do anything as a whole hive mind, do we? So I don't see how what you are saying is going to stop the poachers and big game hunters from doing what they do.

What you are doing is called Monday morning quarterbacking. And unless you are a zoologist or animal behaviorist, your opinion isn't very compelling to me. Now, if you want to put your life on the line and test out this logic, then by all means.

But we actually do have the ability to come together as a whole hive mind and do something about poaching if we want to, don't we? Animals do not have the ability to say "hey, we are in this zoo, so close to humans, so we better behave ourselves and not harm that human baby that just fell into our enclosure," while smiling and waving.

We have a greater chance of coming together/changing our behavior/helping to change the behavior of others than animals do - it's called having a conscience.

And this is exactly why the leap of saying that keeping animals in zoos prevents them from being poached is just that - a leap. It's two separate arguments.

Obviously I don't speak for any animals. I was just commenting on the tigers, lions, jaguars, etc... at the zoo I visit. Yes there are probably some zoos out there that aren't very nice, but their seems to be more pressure from the public these days to have better habitats for the animals.

Just because you want to project your feelings onto an animal, doesn't mean they are actually sad or depressed. There is no evidence to suggest that the gorilla was depressed. He was living in a habitat with other gorillas, so he wasn't isolated. He probably was giving plenty of enrichment, so he wasn't bored. And he was born in captivity, so its not like he knew any other life.

I'm not projecting. Projecting would be if at that time I felt imprisoned and depressed and that was not the case at all. In fact when I went I was happy, and it was seeing the animals that appeared sad that led me not to be fond of zoo's-I see them for what they are. Even you admit that a lot of these animals are born into captivity so they don't even know what freedom is like. And you believe that it's okay for animals to be born into captivity? Surely you have to see how strange your statement is if on the other hand you don't like when these same animals which as you said are captives are then treated with the same disregard in situations such as the op. In fact if we are going to talk about the positive in zoo's--such as the fact that they extend animal lives and protect them then we have to talk about the other part... Which is that because they are mainly intended to serve humans interest not the animals and so when situations like the op happen the animals come second to the humans. Hence how it was easy for the zoo to act as it did and just kill the "animal". No one wants to admit that if we treat these animals as captives in the prison called zoo we are already diminishing their lives as animals and essentially treating them like property.

I'm not necessarily saying that this validates what happened but that because zoos are mainly intended to serve human interest in cases such as the op the priority will always be on the humans life not the animals.

As for how the zoo handled it-for now I don't know how else they could have handled it once it happened.
It's unfortunate and sad that this even happened. I just heard that now because of the public pressure they are investigating the parents--maybe this will result in charges maybe it won't. It won't change the fact that the gorilla died and that when these situations happen(and they have) the animal is not the first priority.

To be honest, I'm not sure there would have been as much as there is now.

You know; you;re right. I wonder.

I think it's GREAT that more people are paying attention to the plight of zoo animals. But I have seen on other media sites to day - people saying that they should have shot the toddler instead.

Nothing like the Facebook vigilante justice. I fully expect this lady's name and address to be published.

I mean - WOW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MurrayOlive

But we actually do have the ability to come together as a whole hive mind and do something about poaching if we want to, don't we? Animals do not have the ability to say "hey, we are in this zoo, so close to humans, so we better behave ourselves and not harm that human baby that just fell into our enclosure," while smiling and waving.

We have a greater chance of coming together/changing our behavior/helping to change the behavior of others than animals do - it's called having a conscience.

And this is exactly why the leap of saying that keeping animals in zoos prevents them from being poached is just that - a leap. It's two separate arguments.

It's great. I hope we all keep this in mind with regard to our factory/containment farming system and animal welfare in general.

How long will it take for the child's parents to file a lawsuit against the Cincinnati zoo for not having a safer barrier so that their child wouldn't have ended up with the gorilla? Medical bills, pain and suffering, emotional damages, punitive damages.

There's probably already been a boatload of ambulance chasers already at their door.

How long will it take for the child's parents to file a lawsuit against the Cincinnati zoo for not having a safer barrier so that their child wouldn't have ended up with the gorilla? Medical bill, pain and suffering, punitive damages.

There's probably already been a boatload of ambulance chasers already at their door.

No, I heard the parent may face possible charges. I really hope so. She is a negligent idiotic mother who failed to control her kid that led directly to the death of an endangered animal. I hope she gets fined and thrown in jail at the very least.

Oh it's a given the parents will sue the zoo and perhaps the city for a multitude of charges, including physical injuries and emotional distress.

Back in December 2007 there was the infamous tiger incident at the San Francisco Zoo where a female tiger somehow got out of her enclosure and killed one young man and injured two brothers. Some eyewitnesses said the guys were taunting lions earlier. And supposedly one of the brothers later admitted to the father of the slain man that they were yelling and waving at the tiger.

Regardless, the brothers sued the city and zoo and later received $900,000. The family of the deceased man also settled later with the city and zoo.

It was found later that the walls surrounding the moat were actually four feet shorter than the American Zoo Association's recommendations, and six feet shorter than what the San Francisco Zoo had originally claimed.

Oh it's a given the parents will sue the zoo and perhaps the city for a multitude of charges, including physical injuries and emotional distress.

Back in December 2007 there was the infamous tiger incident at the San Francisco Zoo where a female tiger somehow got out of her enclosure and killed one young man and injured two brothers. Some eyewitnesses said the guys were taunting lions earlier. And supposedly one of the brothers later admitted to the father of the slain man that they were yelling and waving at the tiger.

Regardless, the brothers sued the city and zoo and later received $900,000. The family of the deceased man also settled later with the city and zoo.

It was found later that the walls surrounding the moat were actually four feet shorter than the American Zoo Association's recommendations, and six feet shorter than what the San Francisco Zoo had originally claimed.

Totally different situation. The tiger left its enclosure in the first, but in the second case, the idiotic parent failed to control a kid, who scaled numerous fences and railing and actually fell over a ledge into the water moat of the gorilla enclosure. The second points to complete lack of control on the part of the parent and she should be investigated for child neglect.

Exactly, neglectful parents, such as these, deserve nothing but to have CPS come and remove thier child/children from them.

How would punishing the parents in that manner affect the child? Quite badly. To put the kid into foster care because of an accident that could happen to anyone. Anyone who has crossed a major street in a city or been biking with a child on a secondary road knows that disaster can come out of nowhere. Were these parents to have kept the toddler in a bubble?

How would punishing the parents in that manner affect the child? Quite badly. To put the kid into foster care because of an accident that could happen to anyone. Anyone who has crossed a major street in a city or been biking with a child on a secondary road knows that disaster can come out of nowhere. Were these parents to have kept the toddler in a bubble?

No, the child must have been neglected for quite a while for him to do what he did to get into the gorilla enclosure. It was gross negligence, not a split second mistake.

But no I don't want the taxpayers to foot the bill for foster care for her child. I want her to pay monatary damages for the death of an endangered animal. That money can go to gorilla conservation.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.